Provision Stack MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Suggestions.generate for options, providers.detect for provider discovery, pricing.get for component costs, credentials.list for credential checks, region.detect for region resolution, and deploy.* tools cover the full lifecycle with clear differentiation (e.g., deploy.destroy vs deploy.teardown_latest). Billing tools are separate. No overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent category.action pattern (noun.verb) using snake_case in the verb part (e.g., suggestions.generate, deploy.teardown_latest, billing.top_up). The pattern is uniform across the set, making it predictable for agents.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools, the surface is well-scoped. It covers discovery (detect, list), pricing (get, generate), deployment (run, status, destroy, list, teardown_latest), and billing (balance, top_up). No tool is extraneous, and the count feels appropriate for a provisioning domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool set appears complete for the domain of provisioning cloud stacks. It covers the full workflow: initial discovery, pricing, deployment, monitoring, teardown, and billing. No obvious gaps like missing deployment modification or log retrieval, given the stated purpose.
Average 4.7/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 23, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true`, `idempotentHint: true`, and `destructiveHint: false`. The description adds valuable behavioral context about polling behavior and the structure of results (endpoints, verificationResults), without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and the second provides actionable details. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one parameter and an existing output schema, the description fully covers when to use the tool (polling after deploy.run) and what to expect in the response (endpoints and verificationResults). No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter. The description adds 'Deployment id returned by deploy.run' which provides source context but does not fundamentally add beyond the schema's own description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Check deployment progress and retrieve verification evidence when complete', which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like `deploy.run` and `deploy.destroy` by focusing on status checking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: 'Poll after deploy.run until status is verified/failed/destroyed' and explains what information is available on success. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the polling guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it never returns secret values, reinforcing safety. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and actionable guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (1 param, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context completely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter (provider enum). Description adds meaning by stating defaults to checking all providers, complementing the schema's description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Check cloud provider credential configuration without exposing secrets.' It uses a specific verb (check) and resource (cloud provider credential configuration), distinguishing itself from siblings like deploy.run.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use context: 'Call before deploy.run to confirm AWS/GCP/Azure/Oracle/Cloudflare are ready.' It also describes what is returned (configured=true/false plus guidance). Could mention when not to use, but is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds 'Read-only; does not change cloud config' and mentions it resolves from env/config or default, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral trait. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one enumerated parameter and output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and sibling differentiation completely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter is well-described in the schema. The description does not add new parameter details but is consistent. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'resolve' and resource 'active region', and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'providers.detect' by saying 'for one cloud provider' versus comparing multiple providers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to call ('before suggestions.generate/deploy.run when targeting a single provider') and when to use an alternative ('Prefer providers.detect instead when comparing...'). Also gives rationale about pricing and placement matching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but description adds crucial context: irreversible, user confirmation needed, and audit logging via reason parameter. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning. Every sentence adds value with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists and annotations cover safety, description adequately covers usage and behavior. Minor gap: no details on immediate effects or system state after destruction, but sufficient for tool's destructive nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds limited extra value beyond schema, only noting 'Optional reason is stored for audit' for the reason parameter. No additional semantics for deploymentId.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool destroys all cloud resources of a deployment and is irreversible. It distinguishes from the sibling deploy.teardown_latest by specifying the scope and alternative use case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to confirm deploymentId with user first and advises preferring deploy.teardown_latest only for intentionally removing the newest active deployment, providing clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it is 'read-only' and does not create, modify, or destroy resources, reinforcing annotations. It also discloses return field structure, adding value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence provides essential information: return fields, use cases, exclusions. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and existence of output schema, description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and limitations. Slight gap: no mention of possible empty results or pagination, but not critical for a list-all tool with no params.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters (0), schema coverage 100%. Baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info; it correctly omits any. No gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it returns tracked deployments with specific fields (deploymentId, status, category, createdAt), using a specific verb ('Return'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like deploy.destroy, deploy.teardown_latest, and deploy.status by indicating when to use each, avoiding ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: when a deploymentId is needed or to inventory active work before teardown. Also states when not to use: for monitoring a known deployment, recommending deploy.status instead. This provides clear guidance for agent decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it skips already destroyed/failed entries and reiterates destructiveness with 'DESTRUCTIVE' prefix. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with 'DESTRUCTIVE:' warning and key behavior. Every sentence adds value: destructiveness, conditional behavior, confirmation requirement, and alternative suggestion. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description fully covers usage intent, behavioral nuances (skip destroyed), safety warnings, and tool selection guidance. No gaps given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'all' has a clear schema description. The tool description adds context about 'newest active deployment' and 'skips already destroyed/failed', which complements the schema well. Schema coverage is 100%, so high baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool destroys the newest active deployment, or all when all=true. It distinguishes from sibling deploy.destroy by specifying that teardown_latest targets the latest deployment without needing an explicit ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to confirm with user before calling, especially with all=true, and recommends using deploy.destroy for specific deployments. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (providers array with source and guidance) and the scope of detection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance and return shape. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and presence of output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4. The description succinctly conveys that no input is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool detects all configured cloud providers and regions in one call, names specific providers (AWS/GCP/Azure/Oracle), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'region.detect'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises preferring this tool over repeated region.detect when comparing multiple providers, providing direct usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description's portrayal of a non-destructive suggestion generator. The description adds behavioral context: it handles clarification requests, requires explicit choice before deployment, and has auto-DNS behavior. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively long but well-structured with step numbers and conditional logic. It front-loads the key message 'START HERE' and uses imperative sentences. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly streamlined without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 params, nested objects, output schema exists), the description fully covers the tool's role in the workflow, interaction pattern (clarification request), and special cases (auto-DNS). It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema parameter coverage, the schema already details each parameter. The description adds value by explaining how to use region (detected from step 1), requirements (when responding to clarificationRequest), and maxMonthlyCostUsd (filters options). This is above the baseline of 3 for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'START HERE for any deployment' and outlines a clear two-step process: first detect region/provider then call this tool. It specifies the output as 'Starter/MVP/Startup/Enterprise options with monthly costs' and distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as the second step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: after region.detect or providers.detect. It also covers conditional scenarios like handling clarificationRequest, waiting for explicit choice before deploy.run, and auto-DNS when domain and CLOUDFLARE_API_TOKEN are set. This differentiates it from sibling tools like deploy.run and region.detect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds value beyond annotations by specifying returned fields, confirming no charges or holds created, and linking behavior to deploy.run workflow. Aligns with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: purpose, usage scenarios, and exclusions. Front-loaded with action and resource. No superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Completes understanding by tying to deploy.run errors, output fields summary, and clarifying no side effects. Output schema exists for details, description covers usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so description doesn't need to explain them. Baseline 4 for 0 params, and description provides useful context about the tool's purpose and output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Return' with specific resources (total, held, available USD) and explicit read-only nature. Distinguishes from sibling billing.top_up by stating 'Do not use this to add funds'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to call (after HTTP 402 or before deploy.run to check holds) and when not to (to add funds), providing alternative tool (billing.top_up) and retry guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses side effects ('opens a payment/deposit flow'), non-idempotency ('each call creates a new top-up'), and explains that balance is not immediately increased. Annotations already hint at open world and non-idempotent, but description adds concrete behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences cover purpose, usage, and side effects without redundancy. Information is front-loaded and every sentence serves a distinct purpose. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the explicit usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and presence of an output schema, the description fully prepares an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Covers when, how, and what happens, including side effects and retry logic.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the rail choices: xrp for agent with destination tag requirements, stripe for human checkout. This augments the parameter descriptions beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a credit top-up intent') and the resource (account balance). It distinguishes from sibling tools like billing.balance (for inspection) and deploy.run (for deployment), specifying that this tool does not immediately increase balance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to call (deploy.run failure with 402 or low balance in billing.balance) and when not to call (for balance inspection, use billing.balance). Provides precise guidance on rail selection and post-call steps (retry deploy.run after funds confirm).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: fee held from credit balance, captured only after verification (failed free), automatic DNS creation conditional on CLOUDFLARE_API_TOKEN, and polling. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
6 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, preconditions, parameter usage, billing behavior, error handling, DNS setup, and post-call action. Front-loaded with core purpose, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, 2 required, 100% schema coverage, output schema present, and a detailed description covering error recovery, billing, DNS, and lifecycle, the tool definition is fully actionable for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds workflow context for parameters like 'resources' (selection evidence) and 'outcome' (deployment objective), enhancing their purpose beyond basic schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('provision') and resource ('the explicitly selected suggestion'), clearly stating the tool's role in deploying after user approval. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like suggestions.generate by being the deployment step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to call ('Never call before presenting options and receiving user approval') and provides detailed guidance on handling HTTP 402 (call billing.top_up and retry), referencing related tools, and instructing to poll deploy.status after accept.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description confirms it does not create resources or hold credits, aligning with annotations readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. It also explains provider inference from resourceType prefixes, adding behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is five sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage order, provider inference, exclusions, and safety confirmation. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (14 params, 1 required), annotations, and presence of output schema, the description provides all necessary context: purpose, usage sequence, provider inference, and what it does not do. It is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds overall usage context like provider auto-detection and region defaults, but does not elaborate on individual parameters. This is adequate given the schema richness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it estimates monthly/hourly USD cost for one cloud resource type. It specifies the verb 'estimate' and resource 'cloud resource type', and distinguishes from siblings like suggestions.generate by noting it's not for full-stack comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use after suggestions.generate' and 'prefer region from region.detect'. It also states not to use for full-stack option comparison, naming the alternative sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![provision-stack-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TravisLinkey/provision-stack-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TravisLinkey/provision-stack-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![provision-stack-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TravisLinkey/provision-stack-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TravisLinkey/provision-stack-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/TravisLinkey/provision-stack-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server